What’s your thoughts on Kagan’s SCOTUS nomination? Here’s what I’ve been reading:
From the BBC:
Profile: US Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan
“President Barack Obama’s nomination of America’s first female Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, to the US Supreme Court has surprised few in Washington DC.
(snip)
Ms Kagan is widely considered a moderate pick, neither particularly exciting to liberals nor antagonising to conservatives.
Having never been a judge, she has no rulings to critique, so senators will largely have to rely on her testimony before the Judiciary Committee and her academic writings to determine her judicial philosophy. That could prove either a blessing or a curse.”
This is a good introduction article in case you need a good starting point.
—
From Talk Left:
Kagan In 1995: Judicial Nominees Must Answer Questions
“The Senate confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court have become “a vapid and hollow charade,” a Chicago law professor complained, because the nominees are not forced to say what they think about disputed issues such as abortion, affirmative action and privacy.”
That Chicago law professor was Kagan. Interesting quote considering she’ll soon be in confirmation hearings herself.
—
From AlterNet:
The Great Kagan Supreme Court Debate
“Elena Kagan’s nomination has divided progressives in part because so little is known about her judicial views. Her nomination sparked a heated debate between two noted legal commentators: Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig and constitutional law attorney and Salon blogger, Glenn Greenwald. Glenn first appeared on Democracy Now! last month making his case against Kagan’s nomination. Then on Monday, he was on our show again and then interviewed by Rachel Maddow that night on MSNBC. Right after Greenwald, Maddow interviewed Lawrence Lessig, who criticized what Greenwald had to say. This led to them both penning articles criticizing each other, defending their position on Kagan’s nomination.
(snip)
Glenn Greenwald: Well, it’s interesting. I’ve been arguing for essentially a month now that the principal problem with her is that it’s impossible to know what she thinks about virtually anything. She has a few law review articles she’s written, a couple of snippets of opinions she’s expressed, but, by and large, she’s a blank slate. We don’t know what she’s going to do on the Court. We have no clue.”
Amy Goodman conducted this debate. Excellent reading.
—
From InfoWars:
Elena Kagan: Wall Street’s SCOTUS Pick
“Kagan sat on a Goldman Sachs advisory council between 2005 and 2008. It was her job to offer “analysis and advice to Goldman Sachs and its clients.”
Obama mouthpiece Robert Gibbs and the Justice Department are now engaged in frenetic damage control over Kagan’s Goldman connection. Kagan’s role working for the “great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity” (as Matt Taibbi described Goldman) should not be dismissed lightly. Kagan will obviously serve the interests of the banksters if she makes it to the Supreme Court (adding to the corporatist influence already well entrenched there). Republicans need to hammer Kagan on this during her confirmation hearing. But then Republicans are the right hand on the zombie One Party grocery clerk known as Congress. Difficult questions will not be asked.)
But it is not merely Goldman. It’s also Kagan’s connection to Larry Summers, the former Undersecretary for International Affairs in the Clinton administration and chief economist at the notorious loan sharking and poverty creation machine, the World Bank. Summers also worked in 2006-2008 for a derivatives firm, D.E. Shaw and was paid around five million dollars.”
There’s several links in this article to read as well. I find the Kagan/Goldman Sachs/World Bank connections deeply troubling.
—
From Raw Story:
Kagan supported detaining terror suspects indefinitely without trial
Elena Kagan, President Obama’s selection for the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, says she supports holding terror suspects without trial — indefinitely, in some cases.
(snip)
Both President Obama and former President George W. Bush have backed holding some suspected terror combatants without trial. In the case of Guantanamo Bay detainees, the Obama Administration has said they would hold prisoners without trial in some cases because the evidence against them has been tainted by suspects’ harsh treatment at the hands of their US jailers and would be inadmissible in a trial.
Kagan’s comments on indefinite detention seem to have new relevance after comments Sunday by Attorney General Eric Holder, in which he declared that even US citizens don’t need to be read their rights if they’re suspected of being involved in terrorism.”
Remember when liberals got upset at Bush over his belief in holding suspects indefinitely without trial? Me too. Those were the days. Where are they now? Grr!
—
From Reason:
The Bounds of Silence
“Last month New York Times legal writer Adam Liptak said two recent Supreme Court cases “suggest that the Roberts Court is prepared to adopt a robustly libertarian view of the constitutional protection of free speech.” Elena Kagan, President Obama’s nominee to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, was on the losing side in both.
As solicitor general, of course, Kagan has an obligation to defend federal laws against constitutional challenges. But her pro-censorship positions went beyond the call of duty. Together with some of her academic writings, her arguments in these cases provide grounds to worry that she will be even less inclined than Stevens, who has a mixed First Amendment record, to support freedom of speech.”
A Supreme Court Justice nominee that’s pro-censorship?!?! Did I accidentally wake up in Bizarro World?
Posted by Vixen as News at 11:49 PM CDT